Lamar Smith Wasting Time Trying To Define Patent Trolls

from the trolling-not-necessarily-the-issue dept

Rep. Lamar Smith has been working hard to change laws in all three branches of intellectual property -- and all of his proposals seem to make those IP laws even worse than they already are. For copyrights, he wants to expand the DMCA. For trademarks, he wants to get rid of many exceptions for use of trademarks. For patent reform, while coming up with a few good proposals, most of them are likely to make the system much worse. On that front, Smith held hearings today to see if Congress could come up with a working definition of a patent troll. While it's good to see Congress recognizing that patent hoarding can hold back innovation, defining just what a patent troll is doesn't seem like it's going to help. The issue isn't whether or not anyone is a patent troll, but whether the patent system is being used to hold back innovation. Trying to define what a patent troll is will simply confuse the issue, and lead companies to focus on avoiding the specific definitions of a patent troll, while trying to accuse every one they get into a patent lawsuit with of meeting the regulatory definition of patent troll. A much more important issue would be to focus on making sure the patent system is actually encouraging innovation.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    angry dude, 15 Jun 2006 @ 8:47pm

    Mike's patently ignorant

    "1. Add a test for obviousness (beyond prior art). Patents are supposed to be for "non-obvious" ideas, and the test is supposed to be non-obvious to those skilled in the art. That should allow patent reviews to involve input from those skilled in the art for a patent examiner to review."

    Now, Mike, think again about what you just wrote...

    Those "skilled in the art" and othewise credentialed persons from academia and industry suiddenly start looking like complete idioits when some uncredentialed outsider comes up with some totally unexpected breakthrough.
    Do you really think they would speak in favor of invention ?
    Of course not, they would all hate the inventor and would try to invalidate the patent.
    This is just basic human nature.
    The obviousness of any independent invention MUST NOT be decided by industry (and even academia) insiders. Period.

    The rest of your comments are equally foolish...

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.